Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:Stexpanded
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale We are a canon/licensed wiki. We shouldn't be linking individual articles to a fanon wiki. Beyond that where will it end? There are many wikis out there that could deal in fanon we can't link to them all. We don't link individual articles to Memory Alfalfa or Memory Gamma - this should be no different. — Morder (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Discussion I definitely agree. It makes sense to link to Wikipedia (for "realworld" topics), and to Memory Beta (because they deal in other "official" stuff). The same can't be said about any of the "fanon" sites, though. They shouldn't get a more prominent link location than any other fansite just because they are a Wiki. This isn't about quality, but about scope. Our scope is not to list fandom activities, so we don't need these external links. -- Cid Highwind 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC) *'Oppose', as the expanded universe is linked on the main page. I see no reason not to link our pages to the counterparts in these wikis. Also, this is on the main page, "Memory Alpha is a collaborative project to create the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek." We are not talking about putting non-canon info in the articles, just providing a link at the bottom of the page to a wiki we already have a link to. - Archduk3:talk 22:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC) *:Comment - fanon is not related to Star Trek because it's something someone just made up that has no relation to the actual production - nor is it a licensed product. Anyone could make anything up they wanted. If you could do that there's no reason anyone else couldn't ask the same thing. There are already one fanon link and one "comedy" link on the home page (I know someone is trying or will try to add another fanon link). Where will it end? Fanon has no business on a site that is for official material. We already link on the home page, that should be enough. — Morder (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC) *:Comment - I actually agree with you on this, in part. We have the expanded universe linked, and the folks over at memory gamma have a right to ask why not them as well, as do all the rest. My sandbox for the related panel isn't meant to be anything other than a format test, and memory gamma just seemed to be the next logical addition. So, as 31dot has proposed below, if the links were removed from the home page, then no one could feel we are playing favorites. - Archduk3:talk 23:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC) *::Delete. We're not here to link to fan sites. As Morder said, that has no end. If the issue is the link on the home page, perhaps it should be removed.--31dot 23:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC) *:::Delete'. Perhaps there could be -one- page on MA that links to a list of fan sites, fan wikis, etc, (by their respective Main Pages) but deciding whether MG, or STExpanded, or Hidden Frontier are all relevant to say Shelby or Briar Patch? This will spiral out of control because they are allowed to decide how important they are on their own sites at will, without citation. We'd end up with dozens of external links on all of our prominent articles if we wanted to be fair, which we don't. -- Captain MKB 00:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) *::::Delete... unless I can link to my own fanon wiki! Can I can I can I? Huh? Huh? Huh? Sure, I don't have one yet, but I can make one, and it'll be fanon-licious! Like, totally, ah-ha! Mmmm, yeah, probably best to just delete it. --From Andoria with Love 07:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with 31dot. If our main page links are going to play a role in this decision, I'd rather have some of them removed than to keep these in-article links based on them. We definitely should keep the MB link, but everything else might perhaps be replaced with a link to the ever-growing list at Wikia, which contains inactive Trek wikis in abundance. -- Cid Highwind 08:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC) :Something like this Cid? (though the last one still isn't working quite right) - Archduk3:talk 10:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Doesn't Memory Beta have a stexpanded template?--Robert Treat 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) :Memory Beta can do what they want as they're a separate wiki. If so, it doesn't change that this wiki's focus is canon and licensed material. — Morder (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ::As a MB bureaucrat, I have to say I support keeping MB in line with MA's current majority on this discussion , and decreasing our involvement to linking to fanon sources -- after all, there's no policy for citations and all it takes is one zealous user trying to create their own strange version to make a citation over on MG and STExp. There are the rough spots, where STExp will not let you create an article unless it is a source they approve of (even if the source is a venerable fan publication), and MG might not let you use a name or other detail in an article because another user has "claimed" it. Let's cut the cord and let these wikias succeed or fail on their own merits, without validating their lack of policy with links from our sites. -- Captain MKB 00:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Admin resolution Deleted — Morder (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)